Quoting somebody who claims the NRA is "an extremist operation for survivalists and gun manufacturers" is over the top. Is Whoopi Goldberg a survivalist or a gun manufacturer? Roy Innes? James Earl Jones?

I think reasonable gun control can be accomplished if:

1. Those advocating reasonable gun control are calm and patient, and ...
2. The implementation can be done in stages, and ...
3. People advocating gun control take a few moments to understand guns

The shrillness of many who espouse reasonable gun control makes many of us who own guns nervous. Hyper-ventilating makes people (like me) think that there will be no end to the demands of the gun control crowd. So, we see every proposed change as a step toward the slippery slope of a gun ban. Calmness will get more done than shrillness.

Universal background checks are a no brainer. Start there. Conservatives agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. How can that happen without checking the background of those who want to purchase firearms? Start with that proposal and nothing more. Get that done.

Magazine size limits might be the next point. However, there needs to be a certain reasonableness. Reloading a magazine fed gun does not take long. I think it's doubtful that magazine size limits will accomplish much. Maybe cap magazines at 20 bullets. That seems reasonable. It's very hard to defend a legitimate need for 30, 40 round magazines. But remember - you are probably not accomplishing much with this restriction.

Knowing about guns is important. Sometimes, it relatively small things. A magazine is not a clip. Most people who talk about clips are really referring to magazines.

Know the current laws. In Virginia there is no limit on magazine capacity. However, any magazine that holds more than 20 bullets makes its firearm an assault weapon. It doesn't matter what the weapon looks like - if it carries a magazine of more than 20 bullets it is considered an assault weapon. Once something is classified as an assault weapon there are additional regulations in Virginia including minimum purchase ages and a prohibition against "open carry" of assault weapons in certain localities.

Forget what a gun looks like. Trying to ban "assault weapons" because they look scary is a total waste of time. You can go buy a rifle capable of shooting a .577 Tyrannosaur round. The rifle will look very normal - not at all an assault weapon look. However, the .577 cartridge was made to stop charging rhinos and elephants in a last resort. Virtually nobody can shoot it accurately because of its recoil. Now, that is dangerous. In fact, any .50 caliber cartridge (and the weapon that shoots it) is dangerous. Here is a YouTube video of a guy shooting a .50 from a very benign looking gun. The ricochet comes within a couple of inches of killing him. Now, that is dangerous.

Right, and that's what we're talking about. As for the NRA having turned into an extremist organization which opposes any limits or commonsense gun safety measures, just look at the NRA board, its positions (which have shifted hard right over the years), its crazy leadership (e.g., Wayne LaPierre), etc. If that group's not extremist, then I guess no group is.

One change in the law that Virginia needs as soon as possible is an end to the ridiculous ability of someone to buy a fire arm, go on the Internet, take a multiple choice test and watch a video (or pretend to), take a passing score on that test to the courthouse, and, voila, forthcoming will be a concealed carry permit if one hasn't been convicted of a crime. That is beyond stupid. In South Carolina - hardly a left-wing, pinko, gun-hating place - getting a concealed carry permit requires that a person prove to law enforcement that he or she can handle a gun safely...like know where the safety is, be able to hit something smaller than the side of a barn, etc. Plus, law enforcement can perhaps evaluate if the person seeking the permit appears to be sane.

Would that make gun owners think the next step is confiscation of all their arsenal? Wayne LaPierre and the political wing of the NRA would make that a sure bet. Gee, I remember a time when the NRA mainly promoted gun safety and the sports of shooting and hunting. That was before it became an arm of the marketing by weapons manufacturers and got paid big bucks for it.

How many people holding valid concealed carry permits in Virginia commit crimes with their guns? My guess is not many.

If there is a real problem with concealed carry permit holders committing crimes in Virginia then I'd like to see the statistics. If there is a big problem with concealed permit holders spraying bullets while in the act of legitimate self-defense I'd like to see the numbers.

This is what I mean. You are trying to solve a problem which, I'd guess, doesn't exist.

South Carolina may have clever concealed carry laws but they are still #6 in overall gun violence by state. Virginia is not on the top 10 list I saw.

I legally own guns in both Maryland and Virginia. Maryland is a gun control paradise. You need to qualify for handguns, get a background check, have the gun registered and get fingerprinted. All just to buy a handgun. Forget concealed carry. None of that is required in Virginia (other than the background checks, most times). Only one problem - Maryland has the third highest incidence of gun murders in the United States. And Maryland is hardly a poor state. In fact, in 2011 Maryland had the second lowest percentage of its residents living in poverty among all American states.

If you want sensible gun control then stay focused. Get the universal background checks.

Immediately after the Virginia Tech shootings took place on April 16, 2007, Virginia political leaders counseled that "now isn't the time" to talk about gun control, and to be calm and patient, etc. etc. As far as I am concerned, the net legislative result in Virginia since then is that the NRA has actually had considerable success in relaxing Virginia's gun safety laws. Anyway, now it's been over six years since Virginia Tech. I think the patience box can be checked off at this point.

I myself much prefer calm. It's hard to stay calm when there seems to be one mass shooting after another, after another. I have gotten to the point that when I hear about a mass shooting, if it is only 3 or 4 people, I think "Oh, that's not so bad." But there have been plenty of bad ones even by that standard.

The bottom line in my opinion is that reason and evidence alone are never going to accomplish any significant changes in the gun laws in Virginia. It's been adequately demonstrated since April 16, 2007. In the end there is going to have to be some passion involved; and for the most part, the great weight of the consistent passion has been on the side of the gun nuts and the NRA. I often think of politics as kind of a sumo wrestling match, but on this issue, the only sumo in the ring in Virginia has been the NRA.

Concerning gun knowledge, if you think about it, why is it so darn important to know much about guns to advocate for gun safety? If people are getting killed racing automobiles on Virginia state highways, for example, do you need to know all that much about cars and engines to advocate for legislation and enforcement to put a stop to it? Granted, the legislators need to know enough to draft smart legislation. But in common speech, whether you talk about clips or magazines, people know exactly what you are saying. I also wonder how anyone who has lived in the United States and is over the age of say, 25, could not know quite a bit about guns. Think about it.

Put-downs over gun terminology are just cheap debating tricks to try to undercut someone's credibility, and add nothing.

The old slippery slope argument is what has frozen all gun safety laws. For example, everyone agrees that people with certain psychiatric disorders should not have powerful firearms and lots of ammunition. Yet, we do not have a database that cross matches known crazy people with gun and ammunition purchases, because of that old slippery slope. What's the alternative? Oh yeah, mental institutions . . . .

I'll say to you about gun control the same thing I say to my Republican friends about statewide elections - you're losing. The one gun / month rule is gone. You can carry a gun into a bar so long as you're not drinking. Gun control proponents in Virginia have been losing a lot of ground in recent years.

That law had been on the books for almost 20 years. A repeal attempt failed in 2010. If you can't hold the line on that repeal you have no chance at broad based gun control reform. Pick your fights.

What do the Republicans do when they are losing ground? They double down with more extremism. Does it work? No.

What are gun control proponents doing in the face of significant political losses? Doubling down with more extremism? That will lose too.

When a football team is losing, what should it do? When its offense is going three and out, what should it do? When its defense is giving up a score on all the recent possessions - what should it do? Blitz everybody on every play and start hurling Hail Mary passes? That will all but guarantee that you'll do even worse. A smart coach picks one thing that he tries to get to work. Sideline passes, screen passes to running backs, eight in the box on defense - find one thing that works and start getting it done.

Finally, as far as understanding guns ... when people demand a limit to the number of bullets in a clip without know what a clip really is ... they sound stupid. If people are going to make specific recommendations, make sure they are accurate. It's really not all that hard. If you need help, call me. I'll be happy to proofread the recommendations. I think the lethality of many firearms widely available for purchase has gotten out of hand. George Patton once called the M1 Garand "the greatest implement of battle ever devised.". It was a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle with an 8 shot clip (and it was a clip). Today, virtually anyone can walk into a gun store in Virginia and buy a far more lethal weapon. That seems a bit over the top to me. But, in Virginia, change needs to happen one step at a time.

Remember, even after Virginia Tech, gun control advocates in Virginia are losing ground. Screeching hasn't helped. Pick your fights. Universal background checks are a good fight. Win that and then move on to the next fight.

I agree with your comments. I do. The gun safety advocates have consistently lost in Virginia, notwithstanding Va. Tech, and notwithstanding Newtown.

I didn't particularly agree with your advice to avoid being "shrill" and to avoid making mistakes in gun nomenclature because that seemed to me to be saying that women should take a back seat on this issue. I am not a women, but I think women have a lot to say, even if they mistake a clip for a magazine.

Simply put, I think the mothers of the slain have to be heard.

I think the women, and particularly the mothers, have a right to be heard. And their voices can't be discounted just because they didn't have a drill sergeant lecture them on the difference between a clip and a magazine when they were young. Without their voices, there is no chance of making a significant change.

But I agree, the gun safety advocates are losing, and have been losing for years. When you are losing consistently, it's time to think about a change in your strategy and tactics.

I agree that if you want to win some support from the population of men who hunt, you better know something about guns. That's common sense. But effective gun safety laws are not going to be passed in Virginia just by convincing sympathetic hunters of the justice of this cause. It cannot be done unless the women step up.

I believe that as a society, we are way beyond quibbling about the nuances of having a 5 shot magazine versus a ten shot magazine. The issue at this point is, are we going to tolerate this wholesale slaughter of people, or not?

My comments had nothing to do with men vs women. There are plenty of women who out shoot me. However, I agree with your point about remembering the victims. In the case of Newtown many of the victims were little six year old children. My youngest son was six when that massacre happened. I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose a child like that.

My points on shrillness and nomenclature are just points of advice on how to succeed. Universal background checks are not an undue imposition on anybody. Conservatives say they want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged. Good. Doesn't that require universal background checks? There should be no need to be shrill on that topic. Let the opponents sound shrill. The debate will be won or lost by those in the middle. Shrillness rarely convinces those in the middle to adopt a position.

On gun nomenclature - a scary looking gun doesn't necessarily mean a particularly dangerous gun. I don't know why some people want to play GI Joe and carry semi-automatic rifles that look like M16s or AK47s. I've never found the attraction of "assault weapons". I also don't understand why somebody needs a 30 round magazine - regardless of the look of the weapon. So, I'd rather talk about magazine capacity restrictions than assault weapons bans. Maybe its semantics but being coolly logical is better than being emotional in my opinion.

I agree with your comments. I do. The gun safety advocates have consistently lost in Virginia, notwithstanding Va. Tech, and notwithstanding Newtown.

I didn't particularly agree with your advice to avoid being "shrill" and to avoid making mistakes in gun nomenclature because that seemed to me to be saying that women should take a back seat on this issue. I am not a women, but I think women have a lot to say, even if they mistake a clip for a magazine.

Simply put, I think the mothers of the slain have to be heard.

I think the women, and particularly the mothers, have a right to be heard. And their voices can't be discounted just because they didn't have a drill sergeant lecture them on the difference between a clip and a magazine when they were young. Without their voices, there is no chance of making a significant change.

But I agree, the gun safety advocates are losing, and have been losing for years. When you are losing consistently, it's time to think about a change in your strategy and tactics.

I agree that if you want to win some support from the population of men who hunt, you better know something about guns. That's common sense. But effective gun safety laws are not going to be passed in Virginia just by convincing sympathetic hunters of the justice of this cause. It cannot be done unless the women step up.

I believe that as a society, we are way beyond quibbling about the nuances of having a 5 shot magazine versus a ten shot magazine. The issue at this point is, are we going to tolerate this wholesale slaughter of people, or not?

The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!